User talk:TylerHayleyOgilvyOne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speedy deletion nomination of Harold Brierley[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Harold Brierley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Can you indicate which sections are disagreeable? TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)TylerHayleyOgilvyOne[reply]

  • Well, the part where you removed my comment is disagreeable--the part that explains that it needs to be rewritten, neutrally, from scratch. In other words, every part. You referred to someone else's biography? Take that one as an example. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing you comment was an accident. This isn't the most intuitive communication system. I only meant to respond. The only biographies referenced were from the subject himself. They were only used to verify company positions and tenures therein. TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)TylerHayley[reply]

  • Sure, but it did send the wrong signal. No biggie. But the deleting admin must have agreed with me. The person may well be notable, but again, the problem isn't the references but the writing. It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Drmies, I tried to use the wizard to recreate this page, it's currently in the Articles for Creation Talk cue. Since you're familiar with the original, is there any chance I could get you to take a look at (review) it? There have been substantial rewrites and formatting since the last version. I would appreciate it if you could.

Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Harold_Brierley Thanks. TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)TylerHayleyOgilvyOne[reply]

  • Alright, I'll give you the good and the bad: the good is, it's day and night compared with the first version, and I'd have no problem sending it to main space (but isn't the "bibliography" already found in the references?). The bad, I'd scrap everything from philanthrophy on down. You could, of course, call in the expert--CorporateM knows this kind of stuff, and his rates are very accommodating. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article contained a large number of sources that were brief mentions, articles published by the article-subject, default bios of the sort that would just republish whatever Harold provides them, and sources that did not actually, directly, support the content. When all that is stripped, what was left is an article that does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability.
I've also seen user:HOgilvy around. The idea of the volunteer community having to train multiple PR reps from the same agency is discouraging. You should designate an internal expert. Drmies' tone is one of being frustrated and biting the newbie, but it is not the community's obligation to provide free services to PR reps. It is the PR rep's responsibility to provide value the same way they must provide value to journalists if we expect collaboration, unless of course there are errors and overt bias, in which case it is our responsibility to be fair and accurate.
If Ogilvy continues its commitment to ethical participation, you will have to learn how to do the difficult consulting that is required to manage clients, who have a skewed perspective of their notability, fame, etc. and will push to use mediocre sources to support their point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 00:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for getting back to me. I guess I'll clear a few things up that may help your evaluation. This is not a client of ours, and we have no vested or skewed interest in the article subject. He is being honored at a ceremony, and we are trying to pay tribute to him. I'm not a PR rep. I'm an intern copywriter on the advertising side. This is supposed to be a nice tribute to a man who, despite his huge contributions to the business world, has gone relatively unnoticed. There are far less deserving people that have a wiki page, and we thought he deserved one.

I've put a lot of work into digging up every scrap I can on Mr. Brierley, and yes, some sources are from the article subject, but the few go mainly to populate his quote section, and validate his various titles. I would count that as a primary source. There are no books on the subject, but I think you can agree that he is in fact notable. He has influenced just about every rewards program there is. The lack of information on him is the precise reason why this page needs to exist. I believe that most of these sources are notable. Academic publications, business journals, trade magazines, company/organization websites, which ones do you see as mediocre? I think all sources go to support the content, especially the multitude of other wiki pages I link to within the text.

In regards to Ogilvy, it is an international company with hundreds of offices and tens of thousands of employees. If there happens to be another account, my office isn't aware of it, but our apologies.

Consider my partner and I two volunteers that want to do a nice thing for a good man. If this is a volunteer community, then isn't the idea to provide free services, to help each other out? We had a well-intentioned idea, and no knowledge of how complex Wikipedia has gotten. The last time I contributed was as an immature freshman in high school in 2005. Can't this be a starting point though? Can't more people fill it out and refine it? We do take this space seriously, but let's take it easy. If Snooki & Jwoww can have a page, then how about one for a decent human being?

We're not trying to promote his business. That's why we focus so heavily on his philanthropy, because giving back is a substantial piece of who Mr. Brierley is as a figure. His reason for being an entrepreneur was to help non-profits and encourage giving. It makes sense to show how a powerful business man drinks his own Kool-Aid. I was trained as a journalist (a profession you make mention of) and I would certainly be ethically justified to make mention of his philanthropic history in publication if that were where I was posting.

Now in regards to your suggestions. I can certainly remove the bibliography, because yes it is similar to the references. I would advocate not cutting everything from philanthropy on down for the above reasons. Let's keep this dialogue open and hopefully we can work this out. Thanks again. TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)TylerHayleyOgilvyOne[reply]

My feedback is the same, regardless of the motives of the editor. We need multiple article from established news organizations (or other independent sources) that cover the subject in substantial depth. We can't choose to cover someone because they have gone unnoticed - quite the opposite, they must be noticed first. Wikipedia is not in a position to evaluate the significance of someone's contributions to society, we can only repeat what is said in reliable sources. If nothing is said, then we follow suite. When an editor wants an article on a topic Wikipedia does not want to cover, there is nothing we can do to help that editor - you just want something that we do not. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to speak for everyone? You don't own Wikipedia. Drmies already said he approved with the changes. Changes which you ignored. This is a democracy, not your personal playground. Businessweek, Harvard Business Review, Advertising Age, The University of Maryland, Harvard Business School, how are these not established and notable organizations? I would move to invite more users to the page with the restored text to get their opinions. TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)TylerHayleyOgilvyOne[reply]

  • Hold on. First, CorporateM looked much more carefully at the sources than I did, and I should have clicked on the Businessweek link, for instance--CM is correct in his assessment of that entry (I thought it was an actual article). Second, I agree in general with his assessment of the sources, as laid out in the rejection of the AfC. On the other hand, I do think that the proposed version is much better than the previous one, and this makes it even better, in my opinion. You can revert that if you like, but it will make the article less likely to be accepted.

    The sourcing, then. Some Googling produces some results. This is a brief mention, but it's not useless. This could be added for the DMA award. This is partisan, but not, therefore, useless, and could be used to verify some basic facts. (I have that much faith in the HBS.) This cites him a few times and calls him a "loyalty expert". This notes his involvement with the AA program, though it is important to point out that it hardly credits him as the sole architect of the program (clearly putting the lie to claims such as posted here); it verifies "one of the architects", if you will. Some hits in GBooks will at least make a case for notability, though they can't all be cited as gospel truth--[books.google.com/books?id=ltJbv0I6_e8C&pg=PT85 this], [books.google.com/books?id=z9Jld9a4olgC&pg=PA88 this] (for Epsilon Data Management, with a bit of context), and there may be a few more. So, I think a better referenced article can be written; whether all of it adds up to something CM or other reviewers might accept, that remains to be seen. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Half of those sources that you provide are already, currently being cited. In fact everything up to the new york times piece is in play. I will take a look at the others. Thank you for leaving a bulk of the body in tact. If I may, what is the issue with the philanthropy sections? Not only do I have valid sources, for them, but they are important to his life work and contribution. I think they are important to note. Particularly the ones in which he is a board member of (indicated by involvement). Also, thank you for your help in locating material. TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)TylerHayleyOgilvyOne[reply]

  • Philanthropy smacks of resume padding, simple as that. Plus, the referencing was below par and, as you know, in many cases such donations are noted in the local paper's society pages and have little value beyond that. Same goes with being on the board of this or that organization; it simply does not amount to much, like it or not. As for the half of the sources--I'm trying to explain what they can be used for; that they NYT wasn't cited earlier is somewhat surprising. The general point is that editorial care should be taken in selecting not just the sources, but also what they are made to verify. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Times Article adds any value to who he Brierley is. The off-handed "loyalty expert" reference isn't much even if it is in the times. The first book was helpful. I can certainly add the other two co-conspirators of AAdvantage (the third and obviously Brierley are already mentioned). Would it be appropriate to at least acknowledge his philanthropic work with a sentence that said he was a philanthropist? He has done millions of dollars in work. Also, would it be fair just to mention his educational work in terms of underwriting chairs at Harvard? I'll concede the rest of it though. About awards: Leaving the DMA award is fine, but can I put back just the Marketing EDGE one? That is the one that he is being honored with this Sunday and ties into his educational work. I'm still combing through the second two books for how they connect.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Harold Brierley (October 8)[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Harold Brierley was accepted[edit]

Harold Brierley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" This is supposed to be a nice tribute to a man who, despite his huge contributions to the business world, has gone relatively unnoticed. There are far less deserving people that have a wiki page, and we thought he deserved one."[edit]

Wikipedia is not for promotion. Wikipedia is not for "paying tribute to a nice guy". Wikipedia is for impartial collections of information from impartial sources; we do not accept hagiographies or resumes. All the edits by other editors here are based on these ground rules. As far as "There are far less deserving people that have a wiki page": aside from the fact that this is Wikipedia, one of thousands of wikis, your argument is summarized vulgarly as "other crap exists in Wikipedia, why can't I add mine?" and is not a valid argument, nor one likely to win you any sympathy here. User:CorporateM in particular is one of our most valued editors, in part because he does work in the PR industry, and understands where the lines need to be drawn. You should heed his advice, as well as that of the other editors who have been working to salvage this article. (And I'll be honest: your username, while it certainly wins points for honesty, means that you bear the scarlet mark of the PR industry, one of the most despised sources of edits to Wikipedia due to the past bad practices of so many alleged "professionals" who don't understand our ethos here; and I fear you will encounter prejudice and antipathy because of it.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike, I certainly appreciate the honesty. Aside from my motivations, the fact is that the subject is a worthy candidate for an article. I'm not completely opposed to User:CorporateM's advice, I was quite accommodating to most of it. My only concern was that if this is to reflect someone's biography, the more thorough the better. Including a date something happened for example, especially when it is clearly evident from research, seemed to me like due diligence. My point of frustration was that some of these facts were being eroded through the editing process without any justifiable cause other than the subjective opinion of what constitutes fluff.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk • contribs)

But if it is to be an actual biography, not a resume of his business career, we need more about his life as a human being and less about what year he jumped ship from airline A to airline B, or founded a particular subsidiary of his obscure self-named consultancy. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Mike I couldn't agree more. I tried to add that detail, but it was all stricken down as fluff. Would it be possible to paste here and have you review the initial post? I think you and I and a few others are on the same page. I think a certain aforementioned editor just has a vendetta against me and is trying to dismantle this post into obscurity because he believes I'm trying to make a PR post, when in fact, we have no business interest in the subject. We are just doing something thoughtful for someone who is getting an award from an educational organization that we are also receiving an unrelated award from. We made a print tribute to the man, and we were so impressed with his life that we as individuals thought that a wiki page would be fitting to do on the side. I assure you all that this isn't a client. Although obviously we as professionals want to represent him accurately. Admittedly we were hoping for something a little on the positive side, but have let that go as I have become more familiar with the severity of wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Still, I don't think that interferes with telling a complete story. TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)TylerHayleyOgilvyOne (thanks for the reminder about signing)[reply]

The problem is sourcing. If somebody is what we regard as genuinely notable, there should be profiles and articles about them in the trade press: Advertising Age, BARRON'S and the like, from which such information can be pulled. If there is no such coverage, that's part of why a skeptic might deem a biography non-notable. Don't sweat the editors, sweat the content and the sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do remember to sign your contributions to talk pages[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerHayleyOgilvyOne&oldid=1191120495"